The role of special schools for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties: is segregation always best?

This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article 'The role of special schools for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties: is segregation always best?' British Journal of Special Education 34(1) pp.19-24, which has been published in final form at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/117989211/PDFSTART.The education of young people with profound and multiple learning difficulties continues to raise challenges and controversies. In this article, Ben Simmons, an ESRC funded PhD student and research assistant, and Phil Bayliss, programme director for the masters degree in special education and disability, both based in the School of Education and Lifelong Learning at the University of Exeter, describe their research into provision for pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties in a special school in the south west of England. Their work, based in an interpretivist, qualitative approach, set out to illuminate issues relating to the inclusion of pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties. The findings presented here suggest that the school, in spite of its strong reputation, struggled significantly to provide appropriate learning experiences for pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties. Ben Simmons and Phil Bayliss discuss the need for improved staff development opportunities focused on enhancing current levels of knowledge and skills. They conclude by calling for a reappraisal of the established view that special schools necessarily provide the best learning environment for pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties

Delivering NEET policy packages? A decade of NEET policy in England

This article explores the way in which government policy shapes the lives of young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET). In particular it examines how the concept of NEETs is set within a specific infrastructure and discourse for managing and supporting young people. The article provides a brief history of the NEET concept and NEET initiatives, before moving on to scrutinise the policies of the Coalition Government. A key distinction is made between those policies and practices that seek to prevent young people becoming NEET from those that seek to re-engage those who are NEET. It is argued that the Coalition has drawn on a similar active labour market toolkit to the previous Labour administration, but that this has been implemented with fewer resources and less co-ordination. It concludes that there is little reason to believe that Coalition policy will be any more successful than that of the previous government, and some reason to be concerned that it will lead to young people becoming more entrenched within NEET

Non-clinical community interventions: a systematised review of social prescribing schemes

Abstract Background: This review focused on evaluation of United Kingdom social prescribing schemes published in peer-reviewed journals and reports. Schemes, including arts, books, education, and exercise ‘on prescription’ refer patients to community sources of non-clinical intervention. Method: A systematised review protocol appraised primary research material evaluating social prescribing schemes published 2000-15. Searches were performed in electronic databases using keywords, and articles were screened for evaluation of patient data, referral process, assessment method and outcomes; non-evaluated articles were excluded. Results: Of 86 schemes located including pilots, 40 evaluated primary research material: 17 used quantitative methods including six randomised controlled trials; 16 qualitative methods, and seven mixed methods; 9 exclusively involved arts on prescription. Conclusions: Outcomes included increase in self-esteem and confidence; improvement in mental wellbeing and positive mood; and reduction in anxiety, depression and negative mood. Despite positive findings, the review identifies a number of gaps in the evidence base and makes recommendations for future evaluation and implementation of referral pathways

Seal or Varnish? A randomised controlled trial to determine the relative cost and effectiveness of pit and fissure sealant and fluoride varnish in preventing dental decay

Background Fissure sealant (FS) and fluoride varnish (FV) have been shown to be effective in preventing dental caries when tested against a no-treatment control. However, the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these interventions is unknown. Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FS and FV in preventing dental caries in first permanent molars (FPMs) in 6- and 7-year-olds and to determine their acceptability. Design A randomised controlled allocation-blinded clinical trial with two parallel arms. Setting A targeted population programme using mobile dental clinics (MDCs) in schools located in areas of high social and economic deprivation in South Wales. Participants In total, 1016 children were randomised, but one parent subsequently withdrew permission and so the analysis was based on 1015 children. The randomisation of participants was stratified by school and balanced for sex and primary dentition baseline caries levels using minimisation in a 1 : 1 ratio for treatments. A random component was added to the minimisation algorithm, such that it was not completely deterministic. Of the participants, 514 were randomised to receive FS and 502 were randomised to receive FV. Interventions Resin-based FS was applied to caries-free FPMs and maintained at 6-monthly intervals. FV was applied at baseline and at 6-month intervals over the course of 3 years. Main outcome measures The proportion of children developing caries into dentine (decayed, missing, filled teeth in permanent dentition, i.e. D4–6MFT) on any one of up to four treated FPMs after 36 months. The assessors were blinded to treatment allocation; however, the presence or absence of FS at assessment would obviously indicate the probable treatment received. Economic measures established the costs and budget impact of FS and FV and the relative cost-effectiveness of these technologies. Qualitative interviews determined the acceptability of the interventions. Results At 36 months, 835 (82%) children remained in the trial: 417 in the FS arm and 418 in the FV arm. The proportion of children who developed caries into dentine on a least one FPM was lower in the FV arm (73; 17.5%) than in the FS arm (82, 19.6%) [odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.21; p = 0.35] but the difference was not statistically significant. The results were similar when the numbers of newly decayed teeth (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.22) and tooth surfaces (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.21) were examined. Trial fidelity was high: 95% of participants received five or six of the six scheduled treatments. Between 74% and 93% of sealants (upper and lower teeth) were intact at 36 months. The costs of the two technologies showed a small but statistically significant difference; the mean cost to the NHS (including intervention costs) per child was £500 for FS, compared with £432 for FV, a difference of £68.13 (95% CI £5.63 to £130.63; p = 0.033) in favour of FV. The budget impact analysis suggests that there is a cost saving of £68.13 (95% CI £5.63 to £130.63; p = 0.033) per child treated if using FV compared with the application of FS over this time period. An acceptability score completed by the children immediately after treatment and subsequent interviews demonstrated that both interventions were acceptable to the children. No adverse effects were reported. Limitations There are no important limitations to this study. Conclusions In a community oral health programme utilising MDCs and targeted at children with high caries risk, the twice-yearly application of FV resulted in caries prevention that is not significantly different from that obtained by applying and maintaining FSs after 36 months. FV proved less expensive. Future work The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FS and FV following the cessation of active intervention merits investigation

Interventions outside the workplace for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age

Background Adults spend a majority of their time outside the workplace being sedentary. Large amounts of sedentary behaviour increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and both all‐cause and cardiovascular disease mortality. Objectives Primary • To assess effects on sedentary time of non‐occupational interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age Secondary • To describe other health effects and adverse events or unintended consequences of these interventions • To determine whether specific components of interventions are associated with changes in sedentary behaviour • To identify if there are any differential effects of interventions based on health inequalities (e.g. age, sex, income, employment) Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 14 April 2020. We checked references of included studies, conducted forward citation searching, and contacted authors in the field to identify additional studies. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of interventions outside the workplace for community‐dwelling adults aged 18 to 59 years. We included studies only when the intervention had a specific aim or component to change sedentary behaviour. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full‐text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information or data when required. We examined the following primary outcomes: device‐measured sedentary time, self‐report sitting time, self‐report TV viewing time, and breaks in sedentary time. Main results We included 13 trials involving 1770 participants, all undertaken in high‐income countries. Ten were RCTs and three were cluster RCTs. The mean age of study participants ranged from 20 to 41 years. A majority of participants were female. All interventions were delivered at the individual level. Intervention components included personal monitoring devices, information or education, counselling, and prompts to reduce sedentary behaviour. We judged no study to be at low risk of bias across all domains. Seven studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessment due to use of self‐report outcomes measures. Primary outcomes Interventions outside the workplace probably show little or no difference in device‐measured sedentary time in the short term (mean difference (MD) ‐8.36 min/d, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐27.12 to 10.40; 4 studies; I² = 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions reduce device‐measured sedentary time in the medium term (MD ‐51.37 min/d, 95% CI ‐126.34 to 23.59; 3 studies; I² = 84%; very low‐certainty evidence) We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace reduce self‐report sitting time in the short term (MD ‐64.12 min/d, 95% CI ‐260.91 to 132.67; I² = 86%; very low‐certainty evidence). Interventions outside the workplace may show little or no difference in self‐report TV viewing time in the medium term (MD ‐12.45 min/d, 95% CI ‐50.40 to 25.49; 2 studies; I² = 86%; low‐certainty evidence) or in the long term (MD 0.30 min/d, 95% CI ‐0.63 to 1.23; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low‐certainty evidence). It was not possible to pool the five studies that reported breaks in sedentary time given the variation in definitions used. Secondary outcomes Interventions outside the workplace probably have little or no difference on body mass index in the medium term (MD ‐0.25 kg/m², 95% CI ‐0.48 to ‐0.01; 3 studies; I² = 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence). Interventions may have little or no difference in waist circumference in the medium term (MD ‐2.04 cm, 95% CI ‐9.06 to 4.98; 2 studies; I² = 65%; low‐certainty evidence). Interventions probably have little or no difference on glucose in the short term (MD ‐0.18 mmol/L, 95% CI ‐0.30 to ‐0.06; 2 studies; I² = 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence) and medium term (MD ‐0.08 mmol/L, 95% CI ‐0.21 to 0.05; 2 studies, I² = 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence) Interventions outside the workplace may have little or no difference in device‐measured MVPA in the short term (MD 1.99 min/d, 95% CI ‐4.27 to 8.25; 4 studies; I² = 23%; low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions improve device‐measured MVPA in the medium term (MD 6.59 min/d, 95% CI ‐7.35 to 20.53; 3 studies; I² = 70%; very low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace improve self‐reported light‐intensity PA in the short‐term (MD 156.32 min/d, 95% CI 34.34 to 278.31; 2 studies; I² = 79%; very low‐certainty evidence). Interventions may have little or no difference on step count in the short‐term (MD 226.90 steps/day, 95% CI ‐519.78 to 973.59; 3 studies; I² = 0%; low‐certainty evidence) No data on adverse events or symptoms were reported in the included studies. Authors' conclusions Interventions outside the workplace to reduce sedentary behaviour probably lead to little or no difference in device‐measured sedentary time in the short term, and we are uncertain if they reduce device‐measured sedentary time in the medium term. We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace reduce self‐reported sitting time in the short term. Interventions outside the workplace may result in little or no difference in self‐report TV viewing time in the medium or long term. The certainty of evidence is moderate to very low, mainly due to concerns about risk of bias, inconsistent findings, and imprecise results. Future studies should be of longer duration; should recruit participants from varying age, socioeconomic, or ethnic groups; and should gather quality of life, cost‐effectiveness, and adverse event data. We strongly recommend that standard methods of data preparation and analysis are adopted to allow comparison of the effects of interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour